Jump to content

Working with DMIS


Recommended Posts

Hello Calypso people....

We have a customer with a Calypso machine and a PC-DMIS machine. They want to be able to exchange programs between the two machines. I've been told the DMIS (not PC-DMIS) import and export option would be the way to go as it will allow exchanges in both directions because Calypso cannot export to PC-DMIS. The PC-DMIS import option also requires a license of PC-DMIS on the Calypso machine. I understand PC-DMIS can be run in a DMIS mode.

Has anyone utilized the DMIS import or export option and what is your opinion, i.e. pros and cons?
Link to comment
https://qualityforum.zeiss.com/topic/12054-working-with-dmis/
Share on other sites

I am not trying to argue with your feedback but if it is based on a PC-DMIS conversion, I'd also like to hear from users with DMIS conversion experience.

I understand there is no "direct equivalence" between the two systems but I believe the point of using the DMIS option is that both Calypso and PC-DMIS will import and export in a format that both should be able to use. DMIS is like step or iges. It is a system that allows exchanges between all systems that agree to accept the DMIS protocol. PC-DMIS, on the other hand, is its' own thing, or what I call a variant of DMIS, which may be totally wrong.
Link to comment
https://qualityforum.zeiss.com/topic/12054-working-with-dmis/#findComment-60138
Share on other sites

FYI, when dealing with PCDmis and profiles.

PCD takes the Min & Max deviation and adds them together and spits that out as a profile deviation.
So if you had a 0.100 profile tol and your Min was -.045 and your Max was .010, PCD calls that a .055 profile

Calypso takes the Min & Max deviation and finds the larger of the 2 and doubles it as profile deviation.
So if you had a 0.100 profile tol and your Min was -.045 and your Max was .010 Calypso calls that a .090 profile

This may not seem like a big deal, but what its meant for us is that profile numbers are almost impossible to correlate between the 2 machines, so if you have to do a study you're better off correlating the Min & Max instead of the profile.

By the way, the calypso way is the better way because the Calypso way gives you a "percentage of tolerance" result that can be verified with a calculator.
Link to comment
https://qualityforum.zeiss.com/topic/12054-working-with-dmis/#findComment-60142
Share on other sites

Please sign in to view this quote.


I'm not sure how current you are with PC-DMIS, but 2020 R2 and beyond introduced the new Geometric Tolerance command (to replace XactMeasure) and, in accordance with ASME Y14.5.1 - 2019, PC-DMIS now reports the measured value as twice the worst deviation (really as t + 2g where g is the growth parameter). Calypso has always done this, but only because ISO dictated it. ASME is reaching agreement in that the actual value is now defined as a single value instead of a max and min.
Link to comment
https://qualityforum.zeiss.com/topic/12054-working-with-dmis/#findComment-60146
Share on other sites

Please sign in to view this quote.

Good to know!
Most of our programs are written in "Legacy".
Even new programs, because our primary DMIS programmer is so fluent in legacy, still writes most of our new programs in that format.
I could see there being issues in the DMIS world with such a major change, both ways will show good parts good and bad parts bad, but the old way of addition is guaranteed to manufacture lower total deviation numbers, and low numbers keep SPC programs running in the green zone.
Link to comment
https://qualityforum.zeiss.com/topic/12054-working-with-dmis/#findComment-60148
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
×
×
  • Create New...